Do your Political Views shape how your villains and heroes act?

[Gradine]

One thing I enjoy about talking with you is your refreshing earnest honesty.

If I had sought to put a strawman of my own devising in your mouth, I could not have conceived of one so thoroughly suited to my purposes.

Thank you.

One of the things I've always enjoying about talking with you has been your willingness to engage in debate on good faith. So, other than the back-handed compliment, did you have a point to make?

Hardly. There are multiple (at least three) meanings of "political" in play. Your point is only proven if they are conflated, but they aren't actually the same.

The problem with your designation with there being multiple meanings of "political" (which I'll allow) is that they are distinctions without a difference. They are conflated; we wouldn't use the exact same word to describe all of them if they weren't.

Let's pare this down to its fundamental level (I have a tendency to go off on tangents and lose my point, after all). My original assertion that started this dialogue was this:

I'd also make the argument that purposefully avoiding real-world politics when collaboratively storytelling is also a political choice, but I know that's not necessarily a popular theory.

My larger point is this: when you create art (and all forms of storytelling, even collaborative storytelling, is art; yes, even "beer-and-pretzel D&D",) you are making a statement about yourself and your world. Even if you don't mean to; even if you're actively trying not to. This is because no art, no story, springs forth fully-formed from the head of Zeus. Inspiration is not a bolt of lightning from nowhere. Every aspect of what we put into our storytelling comes from the culture, the world we live in. We like to say that we consume it, but the reality is more that it inundates us. No matter how hard we might try, we cannot escape that fact. And that culture, that world we live in, the one we cannot avoid impacting every part of who we are? Absolutely dripping in politics. It's pervasive. It's unavoidable. Whether we like or not (I would assume for most people that would be not); whether that's the world we want to live or not (again, I'm assuming this is a negative for most); it's the world we've got; the world we're stuck making our way through.

As an aside, this is especially true for those of us living in the United States, where, among other things, we once made light bulbs a serious point of political contention.

Hence, my assertion that there is no such thing as apolitical storytelling. The act of avoiding making a political statement through storytelling is, explicitly or not, intentionally or not, an endorsement of the politics of the status quo. There is, of course, always a time and a place for simple fun escapism, but even that very term begs the question: what exactly are you escaping from?

 

[Gradine]

Let's do a case study. Here's a game I like to call Find the Politics:

My fantasy world has a fantasy race of creatures. This race has its own culture, family structure, military structure, language, religion, trade, art, etc. Let's call them... oh, I don't know... Gerblins. By the default rules of the RPG system I am using to play in this fantasy world, this race is also, to every last man, woman, and child, irredeemably evil. The heroes (yes, explicitly heroes) are thus rewarded for their wholesale slaughter. If they find a settlement (sorry, lair)? Bonus treasure!

Don't worry, this is definitely Not Political. It definitely bears no resemblance to any kind of historical Othering or Cultural Genocide! No no, it's just a throwback to a series of popular fantasy stories written in a historical place in time where support for that kind of historical Othering or Cultural Genocide was more the norm. But not for Gerblins, certainly no, those are fake fantasy people! Gerblins have a completely different skin color, and tribal social structures, and shamanistic religion, and, and...

This is just the most egregious example, but look, no one is saying to not enjoy your pop culture fantasy game with your Gerblins and your Orks and your Cobalts or what have you. I'm not, anyway. I'm also not saying it's not possible to enjoy these fantasy tropes completely divorced from their troubling historical-political origins. But to purposefully ignore these politics? To shut your ears and eyes to it, and pretend they don't exist? I'm of the belief that pop culture consumed uncritically is pop culture that risks influencing one's thoughts and beliefs without being aware of it.

My two cents, anyway.

 

[Bedrockgames]

All fiction is, in part, a product of the culture in which it was created. Our villains and heroes are influenced by what we think is heroic or villainous, which is a cultural meme. You'd have along row to hoe to demonstrate that this is not at least correlated to politics, as our politics is part of our culture.

There is a big difference though between the culture and politics that surround you having an influence, and using heroes and villains as mouthpieces for your political views. So I think when people say politics don't really enter into their GMing of the two, they mean they are not using heroes and villains to promote their partisan views.

 

[Celebrim]

One of the things I've always enjoying about talking with you has been your willingness to engage in debate on good faith. So, other than the back-handed compliment, did you have a point to make?

Not one I can make here. I've already made my point I think as sharply as it can be made. Like Umbran, I'm handicapped by the fact that you've veered off from discussing how politics impacts your gaming, into discussing politics period. This is hardly surprising though, since you've made it clear that for you all discussions are political and there is no such thing as apolitical discussion. Unlike some, my politics aren't privileged here, so I must stop following this particular thesis around.

I do want to take up a different one, but before I do, my critique of your position does not depend on you having made a logical error or conflating the meaning of the word 'politics'. I consider your position logically coherent, but I'm highly critical of your position anyway for reasons that I've been able to only suggest - and which you confirmed.

That out of the way, you've now advanced this bit in your defense which is completely wrong:

They are conflated; we wouldn't use the exact same word to describe all of them if they weren't.

Unfortunately, the English language is not nearly so regular or precise, which is why one doesn't try to write computer code in natural langauge. We often use multiple words with the same spelling and sound but wildly different meanings in different contexts. We do this even in the case of words which have not yet been given a thorough Newspeak revision to make them mean what certain groups would prefer that they mean, rather than what they have meant.

A good example of a word that had multiple confusing and different meanings even before the Ministry of Truth got a hold of it, is the word 'liberal'.

This word means:

1) 'charitable' - A man with a 'liberal' spirit is a charitable man who gives away generously.
2) 'a large quantity' - But a man can also put a liberal amount of pepper on his pasta, which simply means 'a lot' and not 'charitable'.
3) 'useless' - We see this use of the word 'liberal' in the phrase 'liberal arts'. Liberal in this sense means, "without practical utility", and is employed in contrast with practical arts like architecture, glass blowing, painting, masonry, carpentry, and engineering. The liberal arts are the ones without practical value, as opposed to the ones learned by 'mere' tradesmen. A liberal arts college is the sort, historically, that teaches leisured members of the upper class the things that they are expected to know, as opposed to mere professional skills.
4) 'receptive to change' - This is one of the several varying meanings of 'liberal' in the context of politics, where it refers to a man who by inclination when they see that the status quo has defects, believe that he burden of proof lies on him who wishes to maintain the status quo rather than on him who is desirous of change. They readily embrace new and different policies, hoping for improvement over the existing situation. This is in contrast to 'conservative', who - whether he agrees a problem exists or not - is a man who by inclination would rather see proof that the particular changes that are desired will bring improvement.
5) 'a philosophy that believing in the value and goodness of private property' - This is the original meaning of the word 'Liberal' with respect to politics, and describes the philosophy of thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and others who felt that ownership of property was not only a fundamental human right, but the most critical and important human right. This meaning still is used occasionally in Europe to refer to 'Liberal Economics', some of the 'liberal' parties of Europe are thus pro Free Market parties, but is now so rare in American usage that people who mean this by the word 'Liberal' are forced to prepend the term with 'Classical' to make it clear what they mean.
6) 'figurative' - As applied to speech, logic, or law the word 'liberal' means to take a non-literal approach to meaning and to seek to find a basis of understanding not based on the literal meaning of the words, but for example on the basis of how the interpretation would achieve some desired goal. For example, in the context of RPGs, a liberal DM would be the opposite a DM that applies the letter of the law, but rather uses fiat and interpretation to arrive an interpretation that best serves the goals of the game (for example, what would be most 'fun for everyone').
7) 'politically left-wing' - Generally speaking, this is a term without any definite meaning because it's always relative to the prevailing norms, but often in the Western context means 'opposed to the concept of private property to one degree or the other'.
8) 'broad-minded' - A liberal minded man is one that is undogmatic in his beliefs. He's inclined to be tolerant of positions that differ from his own, and generally accepts the notion of private thought, belief, and action as being as important and valid as the liberal philosopher accepts the value of private property.

These terms are linked sometimes entirely by accident, since they first arose as metaphors for the sort of virtues that ought to grace a 'free' man - by which the original people who were using the phase meant a member of an entitled inherited aristocracy - or as a result of trying to define what it meant to be 'free'. As they exist to day, the words 'liberal' refers at a whole bunch of frequently directly contrasting ideas, as the word has been widely misapplied by those that want to bask in the esteem the word once enjoyed.

And that's before we get into the Newspeak wringer that this word and others have been run through, particularly in recent decades. I strongly encourage people to read dictionaries of the American language from their introduction on, skipping ever few decades to see how a word has been redefined by the lexicographists either because its meaning has changed over time or because their perception of the idea has changed over time as their own biases and beliefs as a community shifted. It's one of the most fascinating and important studies one can do, as very quickly if you do side by side comparison of dictionaries and encyclopedias you'll quickly realize that certain words mean entirely different things in the mouths of some speakers than they do in the mouths of others.

Interesting case in point, for the interested observer: "What does the word 'politics' mean to Gradine?"

 

[Lanefan]

Voluntary cooperation toward a shared goal.

Which only happens if there's no conflict or disagreement; otherwise "voluntary co-operation" is just fancyspeak meaning "one or more people intentionally stifling their desires-opinion-viewpoint", which is awful.

And when there is disagreement - e.g. half the party wants to go up the stairs because the tower represents a limited area to explore while the other half wants to go down the stairs because the dungeon is most likely where the best treasure is - then either the party splits in two or politics rears its ugly head in form of debate-compromise-vote-etc. en route to a group decision.

 

[Gradine]

Not one I can make here. I've already made my point I think as sharply as it can be made. Like Umbran, I'm handicapped by the fact that you've veered off from discussing how politics impacts your gaming, into discussing politics period. This is hardly surprising though, since you've made it clear that for you all discussions are political and there is no such thing as apolitical discussion. Unlike some, my politics aren't privileged here, so I must stop following this particular thesis around.

That's fair.

I do want to take up a different one, but before I do, my critique of your position does not depend on you having made a logical error or conflating the meaning of the word 'politics'. I consider your position logically coherent, but I'm highly critical of your position anyway for reasons that I've been able to only suggest - and which you confirmed.

Also fair, and I can easily imagine where you would go with that, given our previous conservations.

That out of the way, you've now advanced this bit in your defense which is completely wrong:

Yeah, that was a pretty shoddy argument on my part.

Interesting case in point, for the interested observer: "What does the word 'politics' mean to Gradine?"

Of the ten definitions & sub-definitions listed in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, all of them. But the one I'm focused on, because it's the one that most people are arguing "aren't politics" or are "a different kind of politics than what we're arguing here" is 5a: "the total complex of relations between people living in society". Because that is a key component of, really, all of the other kinds of "politics" no matter how much people want to dig their heads in the sand and ignore it.

So when people make the argument their game that they play with entire races of intelligent mortal humanoids with writing, language, art, religion, culture, but are nonetheless irredeemably evil and open season for heroic genocide is apolitical, I then make the argument that no matter how much you might not intend it to, or want it to, it does contain politics. Politics that spring forth from cultural norms, that, whether you like or not, makes a statement, and one that you might not want it to. Again, I'm not advocating that everyone stop playing with always evil Goblins or switch over to Eberron, where this specific concern doesn't exist (as much as I love Eberron, personally).

I would, however, hope that asking people to, you know, think more about where the norms and tropes within our favorite genres come from, and about why we make the choices we make in our own role-playing games, wouldn't be so controversial. On a message board. Dedicated to thoughtful discussions. About role-playing games.

I get that probably the more controversial statement is that this amounts to "politics", but... it's true? Like... personal-level, little-p politics, but it's still politics. Or perhaps the more controversial statement is that it's impossible to be apolitical because the choice to not engage with politics is a political choice, but... that's also true. The choice to say "nope, I don't care about this" is a choice that is, whether intentional or not, whether explicit or not, an endorsement of the way things are. It's a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" approach to politics in which for most people, are only attracted to politics when they themselves are impacted by them. Otherwise, the status quo gets a tepid thumbs up. That's a political choice.

As to the other half of this discussion, the idea that any of us can claim that we aren't somehow influenced by our personal politics when we create our campaign worlds or campaigns or adventures or NPCs... well, that's hubris at best and disingenuous at worst.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

There is a big difference though between the culture and politics that surround you having an influence, and using heroes and villains as mouthpieces for your political views. So I think when people say politics don't really enter into their GMing of the two, they mean they are not using heroes and villains to promote their partisan views.

Very well put and a perfect summary of my view on it.

 

[Gradine]

There is a big difference though between the culture and politics that surround you having an influence, and using heroes and villains as mouthpieces for your political views. So I think when people say politics don't really enter into their GMing of the two, they mean they are not using heroes and villains to promote their partisan views.

This makes total sense, and I buy this. I just personally feel people often underestimate the significance and impact of the former.

 

[Celebrim]

Of the ten definitions & sub-definitions listed in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary, all of them.

Given the breadth that you've ascribed to politics, this is hardly surprising. You'd be harder pressed to define what isn't politics. Since you've used politics to mean everything, including its opposite, you're at a tautology. By politics you mean, everything, which is why 5a is closest to what you believe: "the total complex of relations between people living in society", despite the fact that the very fact that '5a' suggests its a marginal and uncommon definition and not what most people mean by the term.

My favorite dictionary of all is still Webster's 1828, which defines politics thusly: "POL'ITICS, noun The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. politics as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance."

I would argue that the fundamental problem you have is that there is a sphere of thought which has arisen to prominence since 1828 which believes that politics is not merely a part of ethics, but the whole of it. When you use the word politics, you don't actually mean any of the definitions that (yet) appear in the dictionary. When you mean 'politics', you mean not merely a sphere of ethics, but the whole of ethics and normative ethics in particular. Unfortunately from my perspective, this puts you not only at odds with the dictionary as I read it, or the word as I use it, but with the very basis of liberal government and liberality. It's not that I disagree with you, or Webster, that politics is a subject of vast importance and scope, but that I disagree that the whole of human behavior is the proper business of the Polity. But as you know, we disagree sharply over the importance of the individual relative to the group, of the private relative to the public, and of the meaning therefore of words like 'identity'.... and well, 'politics'.

 

[Gradine]

Given the breadth that you've ascribed to politics, this is hardly surprising. You'd be harder pressed to define what isn't politics. Since you've used politics to mean everything, including its opposite, you're at a tautology. By politics you mean, everything, which is why 5a is closest to what you believe: "the total complex of relations between people living in society", despite the fact that the very fact that '5a' suggests its a marginal and uncommon definition and not what most people mean by the term.

My favorite dictionary of all is still Webster's 1828, which defines politics thusly: "POL'ITICS, noun The science of government; that part of ethics which consists in the regulation and government of a nation or state, for the preservation of its safety, peace and prosperity; comprehending the defense of its existence and rights against foreign control or conquest, the augmentation of its strength and resources, and the protection of its citizens in their rights, with the preservation and improvement of their morals. politics as a science or an art, is a subject of vast extent and importance."

I would argue that the fundamental problem you have is that there is a sphere of thought which has arisen to prominence since 1828 which believes that politics is not merely a part of ethics, but the whole of it. When you use the word politics, you don't actually mean any of the definitions that (yet) appear in the dictionary. When you mean 'politics', you mean not merely a sphere of ethics, but the whole of ethics and normative ethics in particular. Unfortunately from my perspective, this puts you not only at odds with the dictionary as I read it, or the word as I use it, but with the very basis of liberal government and liberality. It's not that I disagree with you, or Webster, that politics is a subject of vast importance and scope, but that I disagree that the whole of human behavior is the proper business of the Polity. But as you know, we disagree sharply over the importance of the individual relative to the group, of the private relative to the public, and of the meaning therefore of words like 'identity'.... and well, 'politics'.

Yes, this is going to be the point where we'll have to agree to disagree then.

One thing I will dispute is that my argument is not that the opposite of politics is politics, but that the act of avoiding politics is functionally impossible, and that those that claim they do avoid politics are fooling themselves.

But then again this is following a certain quality of "politics" to which you and I don't see eye to eye over, so <shrug>


Edit: I'll also add as an aside that I love that English is a beautifully fluid, flexible, ever-changing work of art as a language (so much so that I'm cursing myself for ever having gotten into a semantic argument where I've felt it necessary to quote the dictionary), so hearing someone tell me their favorite dictionary of the language comes from nearly two centuries ago makes me cringe a little.